Where to buy?

Correct.

It’s nice to have, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not investing valuable IPC in maintaining it.  (I’ll use it as fodder if I attack the allied navies though, if the allies are silly enough to let it live that long.)

@OLver:

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

There are two approaches to a non-Baltic fleet buy that I’ve seen and use.

1.  Stay put.  If the UK attacks with its air, the Germans kill UK air.  The Germans lose a lot of navy which they weren’t using a lot (they would have used the Baltic transport), and the UK loses its valuable and hard-to-replace air.

2.  Split into four groups.  If the UK splits its air up, German subs can surrender and German destroyer and/or transport have a better chance of bringing down some UK air.  If the UK doesn’t split its air up, then at least three German units survive.  Note that the US bomber will probably knock out another German naval unit.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Yes, trading territories is - after a fashion - a strength of the German fighter buy, but REALLY, you should have been bled dry, especially with having to transport units to Africa.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

German fighters have nothing to do with a fleet in the Pacific.  Nothing you have yet described prevents the Allies from building a fleet in Atlantic OR Pacific.  (Of course, if they build in the Atlantic, they’ll have to overcome that German air force, but I digress)

The UK can still send their carrier and destroyer against the Japanese transport at Kwangtung - and they should, too, in view of the fact they used the Indian fighter against Anglo-Egypt.  More weak play.  :wink:

I think you spent way too many IPCs on industrial complexes.  If you purchase 16 IPC of transports, you can move up to four units from Japan to the mainland, and vary between anywhere from Soviet Far East to French Indochina; furthermore, those transports can be used as naval fodder and to pick up Japanese infantry from isolated islands where they are doing no good.  Compare with a 15 IPC industrial complex that produces three units, cannot switch where units are placed, cannot be used as naval fodder, and do not solve the problem of wasted Japanese infantry resources sitting on isolated islands.  I know Caspian Sub states 2 transports 1 industrial complex is good, but I think I would prefer 3 transports 1 tank on J1 regardless of bid - if I can claim India and put an IC there with Japan, the positional advantage is huge.

–

In practice, those German fighters have limited range, exactly as I previously mentioned; you will probably end up having to split the German fighters between eastern territories and Western Europe.  This isn’t too bad in practice.  What you will probably see is the Allies building up a fleet off Eastern Canada; when the Allies feel like it, they will unite newly built naval units from Eastern US with the existing fleet off Eastern Canada and land at Algeria, where with no surviving Baltic fleet elements and your German Mediterranean fleet probably not in a position to counter, and insufficient German fighters at Western Europe (considering that you have to split between Western Europe and eastern territories), you can do nothing THAT TURN.

On the next turn, though, you can land 10 fighter 1 bomber (possibly 9 fighter 1 bomber) at Western Europe.  If the Allied navy stay off Algeria, you beat them up, if the Allied navy retreats from Algeria, you may have a problem.  Why a problem?  Because even a pretty tame Allied fleet will land 6 US and 4 UK ground units (2 starting UK transports and 2 starting US transports plus 1 US transport bought on US1); you may easily have to deal with a lot more.  And although you have air at Western Europe that can hit Algeria, you need cheap German ground units to act as fodder; you can get 2 German infantry in with the Mediterranean transport, but otherwise - well, you can see that you might have a problem to deal with.

So let us say that is what happens.  On the German turn, you fly all your fighters to Western Europe, and the Allies respond by pulling their navy back to Eastern Canada and buying another US carrier at Eastern US (I assume they bought one already on US1 after seeing the German fighter build).  Germany does nothing about the Allied forces in Algeria.

Germany’s next turn, you can only trade off Karelia and one other territory easily (that other territory being the one your German bomber can hit).  BUT now what?  If you fly away from Western Europe, the Allies will land MORE units at Algeria.  And if you do NOT fly away from Western Europe, the Allies STILL land at Algeria, with probable 6 transports (up to 7 or 8 easily), 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship.  EVEN with that mighty air force, there is nothing you can do.  So let us say you GIVE UP Algeria and start harassing Russia with your mighty air force.  The Allies have sunk 32 IPC in carriers, and are just making their landing at Africa; they are out of position to help Russia.

So as you can see, what have you gained at best?  Nothing but TIME.  Time for Japan to push on Russia.  Time for the Germans to keep the IPCs they gained in Africa.  And that is EXACTLY why I recommend using African bid units instead of Ukraine.  You need to control Africa early while you still can; you WILL lose Africa eventually.

–

And remember these things too:

1.  The Allies can still go KJF (if they do, Germany has to try to control and keep control of Africa.)

2.  By buying so many fighters early, you lock yourself into a certain line of German play.  You may do better to stagger your fighter buys out (say 1 German fighter a turn or even 2 German fighters on G1) so you can have some early infantry to trade with Russia sooner.

In short - yes, if the Allies go KGF, German fighters are useful - however, I do not think that 4 fighters RIGHT AWAY is necessary or proper; I think 2 fighters is the most that the Germans can afford on G1.

I usually build on J1 and J2. Quicker you get tanks on the mainland the better!

I’ll leave that for others who may have some possibilities.

For me, I have a near triplicate set of AAR figures (only double INF), as well as my original Classic A&A set that I can raid at need.

The cheapest option may actually be to just buy a second game, especially if you can find a used one…

@ncscswitch:

You would not have the income to maximize productions at all 3 IC’s… EVER (unless the game was already over).

2 INF in Karelia for a cost of 21 IPC’s over 2 turns is not a good Russian buy… just buy 4 ARM in Moscow 1 turn, and send them to Karelia the next instead :-)

sending tanks into st. petsburg makes more sense but you only have to build in moscow when japan suddenly comes a tapping As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. for it is Only this, and nothing more.

@ncscswitch:

Ah, found it…Â

It is a matter of terminology.  Specifically, the terms now used are “collect” instead of the old “raid”

Here is the excerpt from LHTR…

Capturing and Liberating Capitals
If you capture a territory containing an enemy capital (Washington, Moscow, London, Berlin, or Tokyo), follow the same procedure as for capturing a territory. Add the captured territory’s income value to your national production. In addition, you collect all unspent IPCs from the former owner of the captured capital.

Notice that it says that you COLLECT income (emphasis added above), you do not raid it, seize it, or anything else, you COLLECT it.

Then there is this…

PHASE 7: COLLECT INCOME
In this phase, you earn production income to finance future attacks and strategies. Look up your power’s national production level (indicated by your control marker) on the National Production Chart, and collect that number of IPCs from the bank. Double-check your income by counting up the value of all the territories you control.

If your capital is under an enemy power’s control, you cannot collect income. A power cannot lend or give IPCs to another power, even if both powers are on the same side.

So… since you COLLECT the IPC’s held by the enemy if you take their capital, and if you CANNOT COLLECT income when your own capital is enemy held… you do NOT get the money for taking an enemy capital when your own has fallen.

Sorry, Switch, but you are using these excerpts wrong. You can’t just look at the wording “collect”. That’s misleading, whatever terminology you use it happens in different phases. Phase 7 is just called “collect income” in which you collect income for your territories. You can not draw the conclusion that because the words coincide a “raid” of money is prohibited.

All the rules state is that you skip all phases but CM and NCM. It is NOT wrong to seize(or collect if you wish) money during those phases. It is during phase 7 you can’t collect income.

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

Yeah I was really confused too when I bought my copy of A&A revised because I didn’t see “revised” on the cover. You can tell it’s revised because it says “new destroyer and artillery pieces!” and it just says axis and allies, not some other variant like pacific/europe.